Bower v. Harrah's Laughlin, Inc.
125 Nev. 470, 215 P.3d 709 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal issue preclusion applies to non-parties only if their interests were 'adequately represented' by a party in prior litigation, as defined by Taylor v. Sturgell, requiring aligned interests, representative capacity or court protection, and sometimes notice. Nevada issue preclusion, conversely, requires 'privity' for non-parties, and an unforeseeable intentional tort or crime by a third party can constitute a superseding intervening cause, precluding liability for a defendant's initial negligence.
Facts:
- On April 27, 2002, a brawl erupted between the Hell's Angels and the Mongols biker gangs at Harrah's Laughlin Hotel and Casino in Laughlin, Nevada, during its annual River Run event.
- The brawl resulted in multiple deaths and injuries to numerous individuals.
- Michael Bower, Robert Garcia, Noi Lewis, Kathy and Steven Fuller, and Andrea and Dean Daniels (appellants) were not members of either biker gang but were bystanders who suffered physical and emotional harm.
- Outside the casino, after the brawl, police officers from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) pointed guns at Garcia and Lewis, ordered them to put their hands up, and handcuffed them.
- During handcuffing, an officer pushed Lewis to the ground, causing her blouse and bra to slip, exposing her breast, and she was then walked to another area with her breast exposed.
- When Garcia commented on the officers' treatment of Lewis, an officer struck him.
- Police detained Garcia and Lewis for several hours, during which Garcia's requests for his evening dose of seizure medication were denied.
- Garcia subsequently suffered two seizures before being transported to a hospital by ambulance.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Bower filed claims for premises liability, negligence, fraud, negligent representation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices against Harrah's in Nevada state district court.
- State district court Judge Denton denied Harrah's motion for summary judgment regarding Bower's claims based on issue preclusion.
- Harrah's petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, which was denied.
- Bower's case was reassigned to state district court Judge Johnson and consolidated with cases filed by Robert Garcia, Noi Lewis, Kathy and Steven Fuller, and Andrea and Dean Daniels (collectively, appellants), who had filed various negligence claims.
- While appellants’ case was pending, a Nevada federal district court jury returned a verdict for Harrah's in a similar case (Yvette Barreras v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc.).
- A California superior court jury returned a verdict for Harrah's in a similar case (Ramirez v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.).
- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Harrah's summary judgment in four separate cases (Sweers, Nolan, Alcantar, Schoenleber).
- The Nevada state district court granted Harrah's summary judgment in two other cases (Salvador Barreras v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc. and Collins v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc.).
- At a hearing, Judge Johnson granted Harrah’s oral motion to reconsider summary judgment regarding Bower.
- Judge Johnson granted Harrah’s summary judgment motion against all appellants based on issue preclusion, entering final judgment.
- Judge Johnson also granted Harrah’s summary judgment motion regarding plaintiffs Lewis and Garcia based on the merits of their case.
- The district court granted Harrah’s post-judgment motion for attorney fees and awarded costs.
- Appellants (Bower, Garcia, Lewis, Fullers, Daniels) appealed the district court's decisions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does federal issue preclusion bar the claims of non-party bystanders against Harrah's when those bystanders were not adequately represented in prior federal cases, as clarified by Taylor v. Sturgell? 2. Does Nevada issue preclusion bar the claims of non-party bystanders against Harrah's when those bystanders were not in privity with parties in prior state cases? 3. Was the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's (Metro) conduct a superseding intervening cause of harm to Garcia and Lewis, thereby precluding Harrah's liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, L.
No, federal issue preclusion does not bar the claims of non-party bystanders against Harrah's based on prior federal decisions because the plaintiffs in those cases did not adequately represent the appellants' interests under Taylor v. Sturgell. The Court found that Harrah's failed to establish the required elements for adequate representation, specifically that prior plaintiffs knew they were representing appellants' interests, that the original courts protected appellants' interests, or that appellants had notice of the prior suits. The Court emphasized that 'adequate representation' is a narrow exception requiring specific conditions, rejecting 'virtual representation' and uncertified class actions as insufficient for due process. No, Nevada issue preclusion does not bar the claims of non-party bystanders against Harrah's based on prior state decisions because the appellants were not in privity with the plaintiffs in those prior cases. The Court clarified that Nevada law requires a legal or private relationship where one acquired an interest through another party, and no such relationship existed between the appellants and prior state plaintiffs. Yes, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's (Metro) subsequent mistreatment of plaintiffs Garcia and Lewis was a superseding intervening cause that relieved Harrah's of liability for their harm. The Court determined that Metro's acts (intentional torts like excessive force, false imprisonment, and denial of medical care) were unforeseeable and extraordinary, not the type of harm expected from Harrah's alleged negligence in failing to prevent the biker brawl, thus breaking the chain of causation. Finally, the district court abused its discretion in awarding Harrah's attorney fees because the appellants' claims were not maintained without reasonable ground, especially considering the differing legal interpretations of issue preclusion and a prior judge's denial of summary judgment for Bower. The award of costs was also vacated for all appellants except Garcia and Lewis, as Harrah's only prevailed against those two on the merits of their claims.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent requirements for applying non-party issue preclusion under both federal and Nevada law, highlighting the due process protections afforded to individuals not directly involved in prior litigation. It demonstrates the retroactive application of new Supreme Court precedent (Taylor v. Sturgell) to pending appeals, even when lower courts relied on older law. Furthermore, the decision provides a detailed application of the 'superseding intervening cause' doctrine, emphasizing that highly unforeseeable and intentional acts by a third party can absolve a defendant of liability for initial negligence, limiting the scope of proximate causation in premises liability cases. This distinction between federal 'adequate representation' and Nevada 'privity' for issue preclusion is crucial for practitioners navigating multi-jurisdictional litigation.
